Skip to content
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Inc

Ballot initiative strategy center, inc.

$405k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$200k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Civil Rights$1.0MPublic Benefit$865kEnvironment$15k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $55k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $350k
$50,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$3.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ORGANIZE ACTION INC$200,000
PROTECT OUR SCHOOLS KENTUCKY$50,000
PROGRESS ARIZONA$50,000
VOTER RIGHTS COLORADO$50,000
MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTION$45,000
NEBRASKA VOTES$10,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY21–22, $570k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%ACTIVATE 48 EDUCATION FUND: $285k → 11%ACTIVATE 48 EDUCATION FUND: $285k → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

MI
OR
CA
CO
NE
MO
KY
AZ
FL
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.6M · 5 repeat orgs$285k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +302% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
6

Total granted

$1.6M
$130k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+302%
0%

Still filing today

100%
17%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $155k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’18’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsHuman ServicesOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • A4
    ACTIVATE 48 EDUCATION FUND
    2× · 2021–2022 · $570k · revenue ×12
  • OA
    ORGANIZE ACTION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $550k · revenue +302%
  • PA
    PROGRESS ARIZONA
    3× · 2021–2024 · $150k · revenue +389%

Funded once

  • TA
    TIDES ADVOCACYgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $60k · revenue +130%
  • PT
    PROMOTE THE VOTE
    one grant, 2018 · $20k
  • CM
    CLEAN MISSOURI
    one grant, 2018 · $15k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Protect Colorados Vote

To oppose a colorado statewide ballot initiative to join the national popular vote compact

—
2
Transparent Elections for Grassroots Engagement 1

Support state initative petition

—
3
Protect Ar Constitution

Protect AR Constitution is a grassroots, citizen-led effort to defeat the legislatures referred amendment which would change the threshhold of passage for ballot measures to a 60% super majority. We protect the constitutional rights of…

—
4
America Votes

The Organization was established to coordinate and promote progressive issues, policies, initiatives, and referenda, and to pursue electoral reform that expands access to the ballot.

Community Improvement
5
Our Voice Our Vote Arizona

Our voice our vote arizona engages in community organizing, leadership development, and civic participation efforts. the organization focuses on voter registration, education, and engagement to strengthen communities and encourage active…

Civil Rights
6
Colorado People's Action

Colorado people's action (cpa) is a member-driven, racial justice organization dedicated to winning long-lasting progressive public policies in colorado. cpa builds power by mobilizing voters, electing our own people to office, holding…

—
7
Make Elections Fair Inc

Advocacy and passage of initiatives to eliminate the partisan primary to allow all voters to vote in the primary for any candidate.

—
8
Yes On National Popular Vote

Support "yes" vote on referendum dealing with national popular vote

—
9
People's Independent Commission

Supports Measure to Remove Lawmakers Power to Set Their Own Pay

—
10
One Person One Vote

Ballot issue political action committee to advocate for the defeat of a constitutional amendment that would require a 60% threshold for any future constitutional amendments.

—
11
Guarantee Our Votes Project

Protect voting rights in the united states for all citizens and expand voting rights to citizens who have been historically disenfranchised or under-represented in the electoral process.

Civil Rights
12
Vote Yes on 113

Supports state ballot Measure 113 that will hold politicians accountable

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Progress Arizona; the most unlike its peers is Oregonians United Against Profiling. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 13 of the 15 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/13
Grantees still filing
6/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ORGANIZE ACTION: $550,000 · Civil RightsORGANIZE ACTIONARIZONA WINS: $250,000 · Civil RightsARIZONA WINSPROGRESS ARIZONA: $150,000 · Civil RightsPROGRESS ARIZONAADRC ACTION: $80,000 · Civil RightsADRC ACTIONMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTION: $45,000 · Civil Rights+1 more: $10,000 · Civil RightsACTIVATE 48 EDUCATION FUND: $570,000 · Human ServicesACTIVATE 48 EDUCATION FUNDTIDES ADVOCACY: $60,000 · OtherTIDES ADVOCAC…COLORADANS FOR ACCESSIBLE AND SECURE ELECTIONS: $50,000 · OtherCOLORADANS FO…PROTECT OUR SCHOOLS KY: $50,000 · OtherPROTECT OUR S…PROMOTE THE VOTE: $20,000 · OtherPROMOTE THE V…CLEAN MISSOURI: $15,000 · OtherCLEAN MISSOUR…RAISE UP MISSOURI: $15,000 · OtherRAISE UP MISS…We the People of Florida: $10,000 · OtherOregonians United Against Profiling: $10,000 · Other
Civil Rights$1,085,000Human Services$570,000Other$230,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetORGANIZE ACTION: $550,000 over 2y, 18% of budgetARIZONA WINS: $250,000 over 2y, 5.7% of budgetPROGRESS ARIZONA: $150,000 over 3y, 9.7% of budgetADRC ACTION: $80,000 over 2y, 23% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $60,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOLORADANS FOR ACCESSIBLE AND SECURE ELECTIONS: $50,000 over 1y, 6.7% of budgetPROTECT OUR SCHOOLS KY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTION: $45,000 over 1y, 6.6% of budgetPROMOTE THE VOTE: $20,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetWe the People of Florida: $10,000 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetNEBRASKA VOTES: $10,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetOregonians United Against Profiling: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Sixteen Thirty FundLiving United for Cha…Instructional Telecom…Communications Worker…Way to Win Action Fun…American Federation o…Open Society Action F…All Hands on Deck Net…Tides Foundation
Sixteen Thirty FundDC25.7× affinity10 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Living United for Change in Arizona · Instructional Telecommunications Foundation Inc · Communications Workers of America Afl-Cio Clc · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees · Open Society Action Fund Inc · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Tides Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 15 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Ballot Initiative Strategy Center’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home